Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 30 Nov 2004

Vol. 593 No. 5

Leaders’ Questions.

I wish the Taoiseach and the Government well in the delicate negotiations, which are at a sensitive stage, in respect of the Good Friday Agreement. I sincerely hope these sensitive discussions will have a successful conclusion.

I want to raise the serious implications of the decision handed down today by the Special Criminal Court. A person, with a close association with a Member, was convicted of IRA membership, conducting the dual role of Dublin IRA brigade intelligence officer and that of an election agent for a Sinn Féin Deputy. When this matter was raised in 2003 the Taoiseach said this was rubbish and the situation did not exist. When did the Taoiseach become aware from intelligence briefings that the surveillance of movements of Members from both his party and mine was actively put under way by the persons concerned? I understand that up to 20 Members were not informed by the appropriate authorities that this surveillance of movements, observation or spying, was being conducted? Why have Members had to read this in the newspapers? This activity took place when the IRA was on ceasefire yet those convicted were on active duty. Will the Taoiseach confirm that they will not be released under any terms of the Good Friday Agreement?

I do not have any more details than Deputy Kenny. I understand that two men, Niall Binéad and Ken O'Donohoe, were today convicted and sentenced to four years for membership of the Provisional IRA. I do not recall that I am on record saying this was rubbish.

As I remember it, there were a few events around the same time involving the observation of certain activities by an off-duty garda who thought the persons involved were watching his home. In this case, a normal Garda patrol subsequently came across a van in which people were found. I recall the robbery of a pub in north Dublin in which a significant number of people engaged in establishing road-blocks. The manager of the pub was kidnapped from his home. A number of similar incidents occurred at the same time.

What kind of activity was it?

It was severe, criminal activity. I do not recall ever saying these cases were nonsense. People were arrested and charged.

Deputy Kenny asked when I had knowledge that information was gathered about a previous Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, the Minister for Finance and other Deputies. I was not given the information in a security briefing until the court cases were held. Obviously, it is a very serious matter that people were engaged in gathering information on Members of the elected assembly of the Houses of the Oireachtas for criminal, paramilitary or whatever other purposes. It is being dealt with by the courts.

The issue of the involvement of the accused in activities prior to April 1998 does not arise in the context of the release of prisoners under the Good Friday Agreement. The individuals concerned will serve their sentences as have over 40 others who have been arrested and sentenced for paramilitary and criminal activities over the last number of years. The imprisonment of these people represents the success of the Garda special units which have been working to counter their activities. That is my information.

To be very clear, I have never seen a detailed security briefing on what these individuals were really about.

The Taoiseach assures the House that he never saw an intelligence briefing on this matter. The Garda only became aware of it after a Deputy and the party involved rang the Garda station in Bray on two occasions to inquire about the person who was the second to be convicted of IRA membership in the case under discussion. The Deputy rang the station on the assumption that the first-named person had been arrested. The story appeared in the Irish Independent on 26 January last year, at which stage the Taoiseach said he knew nothing about a spying operation. The matter was then dropped. Am I to understand that the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform was not aware of the matter? If one reads between the lines of replies or comments by the Minister to a Sinn Féin Deputy last year, it appears he might have known from intelligence briefings what was going on.

Can the Taoiseach inform the House whether the intelligence gathered by the Army and the Garda is being made available to the International Monitoring Commission to inform their brief on the activities of the IRA? The Taoiseach will recall that the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform said last year that the Provisional IRA was involved in criminal activity in Dublin Port. Does the Taoiseach consider that the International Monitoring Commission should be provided with information on the activities of members of the IRA in the Republic? If the members have been convicted in this jurisdiction, they are obviously operating here. I say that without wishing to infringe in any way on the current, sensitive events surrounding the conclusion of the Good Friday Agreement.

I accept completely what Deputy Kenny says. I do not consider the issues to be related either. While the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform always has knowledge of security initiatives, I am aware of them in the context of Northern Ireland. I am not aware of normal issues occurring here. If the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform had raised any of these issues when the people in question were charged, it would have been completely inappropriate. It would have affected a conviction through the legal system. Whether the Minister knew or not, it would have been inappropriate to raise the matter in the House. As has happened on previous occasions, reference to the matter here would have been used to try to help Niall Binéad and his colleague, Kenneth Donohoe, to avoid prosecution for the serious offences in question.

I had no information other than what has come out in court and do not to this day. Apparently, the two men and perhaps others associated with them had documents relating to a former Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform and the movements of Dáil Members. The information outlined in the courts refers to very serious offences which, as Deputy Kenny correctly says, have nothing to do with current events.

The activities of these people and the question of why they should have been gathering such information is a serious matter. The men have been sentenced to four years imprisonment for their activities, but I still do not know what the motive for tracking, following and detailing the activities of Members of this House. It remains to be proven what it was all about. It should be remembered that the sentences were imposed for IRA membership, which does not resolve the issue of information gathering.

Is it correct that they will not be released under the terms of the Good Friday Agreement?

Without checking, a distinction is made between those who committed offences prior to 10 April 1998 and those who have done so since then. People who have committed offences since 10 April 1998, of whom there are many, have not been able to avail of the provisions of the Agreement. At last count, approximately 40 people were imprisoned, many of whom are serving very long sentences.

I remind the Taoiseach that on the most recent Private Members' debate, the Labour Party proposed a review of the M3 route. We raised the matter as a national monument of international significance is at risk while acknowledging fully the need to provide the hard-pressed commuters from Meath towns with more speedy access to this city, which is usually their place of work.

I note in one of today's newspapers the description by Deputy Haughey, Chairman of the Committee on Environment and Local Government, of any attempt to push ahead with the M3 as an action bordering on vandalism. His view is representative of the widening base of acknowledgement that it would be foolhardy to press ahead with the current route if for no other reason than that it is likely to be litigated for years. We have had many experiences in this area since the Wood Quay development. We are now confronted with a scenario in which the admitted discovery of 38 sites means it is expected to make a significant archaeological find every 370 m along the proposed route. One does not have to be Einstein to realise this will mean a prolonged delay which will help nobody from Kells, Navan or Dunshaughlin to access the city more quickly.

People who see adherence to the proposed route as the quickest way to build a road will find out after we have been bogged down in litigation for ten years that it will still not be built. Is not that a very good reason for the Government to take a pragmatic view? While the opportunity still exists, the Government should review the proposed road, provide an alternative route for hard-pressed commuters and, above all, protect a monument which contains our Celtic past?

I was asked this question when dealing with infrastructural questions recently and I stated that, despite all that has happened, the archaeological digs are continuing. I understand there is a six-metre trench in the area. There are spurs off that trench and a large number of people are working on it to determine its significance. The Government cannot make a call on it until it receives all the reports. There are those in the National Roads Authority and within the council system who say the number of finds so far is in line with the number that would be made on any other stretch of road, although I cannot make a call on that.

Deputy Rabbitte is correct. A concerted campaign is under way expressing misgivings centring on the impact of the construction of the M3 on the site chosen by the NRA. They say this will affect the cultural heritage of the landscape the proposed road passes and that this will be compounded by the delay in getting major archaeological reports on it. The scheme was approved with modifications by An Bord Pleanála in August 2003, no High Court objection to the board's decision was made and the scheme became operational on 24 September 2003.

Questions were raised at that time about alternative routes to the east of the Skryne Valley. That has been advocated. It is said that this route would have a significant impact on the local community, farms and over 200 houses. The eastern route would also entail a high level bridge crossing the Boyne, giving rise to significant visual intrusion. The landscape architect who assessed the visual impact in the EIS stated at the oral hearing that he considered that the proposed M3, including the Blundelstown interchange, would not visually impinge on the sensitive landscape surrounding the national monuments. He put forward various montages to show why that was the case.

Deputy Rabbitte is correct because a head of steam has now built up on this issue, as often happens, and I will not try to call it until we receive archaeological advice on it. If there were an easy route, right or left——

What about the railway?

——I would take Deputy Rabbitte's view that we should cut our losses and build on it, but there is not an easy route to the right or left of it.

The Taoiseach responds to the left.

The Taoiseach, without interruption.

All I know is that the reports we saw to the effect that the road would go through the Hill of Tara are not correct because the new road is further away than the old road. I am aware of what Deputy Haughey said yesterday. I understand he also said he would go and look at it.

I am sure his father told him about it.

The other experts should have a look at it as well. In the meantime, we have to wait but it is the old story.

A very old story.

What I am concerned about is improvements in road safety, the quality of our roads, road barriers and all those other issues. I am trying to get commuters safely to their destinations.

A Deputy

What about the railway?

It is the old story but at least this time it is about our heritage about which I would be more sympathetic than the swans, which are breeding very well, and the snails, which have moved on. This is more significant and I would like the archaeologists to provide the Government with a clear report on what they honestly believe. Perhaps then the Government can call it.

If somebody has advised the Taoiseach that the finds along the route of this proposed motorway are the same as the finds that would be found in any other route, that person is either a fool or a philistine. The Taoiseach knows well that is not true. This has been described by international experts as a landscape of unique archaeological, cultural and natural significance, and they are describing the Tara-Skryne valley. Everybody knows the road will not go through the Hill of Tara.

(Interruptions).

Deputy Rabbitte, without interruption.

Everybody knows this will attract not just national attention but international attention. It is of that significance. It is the first decision the new Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputy Roche, will have to make and I do not understand why the decision cannot be made now before we become bogged down in expensive litigation that will postpone the road——

Before we have evidence. Does the Deputy have evidence?

I know the Minister, Deputy Noel Dempsey, has claimed credit, on behalf of the Fianna, for driving a road through the Hill of Tara.

Does the Deputy have any evidence?

The Minister should allow Deputy Rabbitte to continue.

I am asking if he has the evidence.

We have a problem when the Minister, Deputy Dempsey, and the Minister for Transport, Deputy Cullen, join forces. These are the same people who told us not to listen to the arguments being advanced from this side of the House about electronic voting, and look what they ended up costing us. That will be a fraction of what they will cost us in the case of the M3 motorway if they do not listen.

The Deputy is talking about electronic voting as well now.

The Minister should allow Deputy Rabbitte to conclude.

He is making a speech.

These Ministers will not listen. I am not advancing the arguments. Archaeological scholars of international standing are advancing these arguments.

They are not doing the excavations. Any of us can——

Will the Minister allow Deputy Rabbitte to conclude without interruption?

I do not oppose the building of the road.

The Deputy does.

Neither am I opposed to the reopening——

The Deputy speaks out of both sides of his mouth at the one time.

——of the rail track between Navan and Dublin. That should be done anyway, but we are ignoring the experience we have had from Wood Quay to Carrickmines to the experience of the Minister, Deputy Cullen, in Waterford and walking into prolonged and expensive litigation that will not get one commuter any faster from his constituency to Dublin.

It will get them there much more quickly than it would if they followed the Deputy's idea.

The Minister is not the Taoiseach yet.

Build two ends of the road and leave the middle blank.

The Taoiseach should be allowed speak without interruption.

Deputy Rabbitte is making the point that when there are objections from some people who are renowned but are not the archaeologists on site, we should cut our losses and move to another site. I understand that argument but Deputy Rabbitte will understand that when the NRA chose this route, it became the subject of the longest ever An Bord Pleanála hearing. That is now completed, there has been no objection to the High Court and the archaeologists are working on the site. I am informed that the archaeological finds on this site are far fewer in number than those found on the Cashel bypass.

That is nonsense.

I am just giving the House the facts. I understand the point about the delay. We looked at the possibility of an easy route, right or left, but there was not one that would not affect many people.

There is a railway line.

We are waiting for the archaeologists who are engaged in this large dig to come back to us with a conclusive view. I do not want to get into a long, protracted process.

The Deputy mentioned some roads and there have been several others but some of the arguments in those cases were ridiculous. If there is some historical reason that has been missed by everybody, the Government will have to look at it.

It will be too late when it is built.

I recall the proposal for the Swords bypass in the mid-1990s. It was supposed to change Irish wildlife forever and all the swans in Ireland were going to depart. It is there now and the swans have never looked happier.

The Taoiseach is fond of birds.

Somebody has to be an expert but I am not.

There were experts but they were not heeded.

Archaeology has been one of the fastest growing professions in the State and, presumably, archaeologists will make a report.

I do not know the answer; I am not an archaeologist.

Ask Deputy de Valera.

The Taoiseach is mixing up the swans with the tax exiles.

I am not even an amateur archaeologist but I will not build up a head of steam until I see evidence. They are doing their work in large trenches and they will report back to us. We can make a judgment then. I agree we should not delay.

My question is on the minds of many people in Dublin, Ireland and beyond these shores. What can be done to avert the demise of Bewley's cafes? I was sitting in Bewley's the other day thinking of the Taoiseach's recent description of himself as a socialist. He also referred to how he valued the Botanic Gardens because he felt he owned them and he valued Dublin Zoo in a similar vein. If he were in the Great Southern Hotel in Killarney or Parknasilla, he would have the same warm feeling of being part of the action and part of the ownership.

The Crown Bar in Belfast is effectively in public ownership. It is owned by the National Trust and managed by Bass Ireland, which the Taoiseach will be delighted to hear. The National Trust made a decision to purchase that exotic property in 1978 with the encouragement of Sir John Betjeman, the late Poet Laureate. The work carried out on the property in 1981 cost £400,000. The bar was restored to what is regarded internationally as a visual gem and it is a major tourist attraction.

Will the Taoiseach acknowledge the intrinsic value of Bewley's cafés, which face the prospect of becoming clothes shops on Grafton Street? He earlier referred to how interested he is in heritage. Bewley's is not only a café but it is "Dublin's front room", as one journalists described it. It is on the site of the school attended by Robert Emmet, Thomas Moore, Richard Sheridan and the Duke of Wellington. The café has been frequented by Joyce, Behan, Flann O'Brien and Mary Lavin. Will the Taoiseach consider the possibility of the Government entering an arrangement to ensure the café can continue as a social amenity and viable business, given that is an immense asset to the city as well as the State? He should not listen to everything the Tánaiste tells him.

The Taoiseach does not have as much time as I do.

The effect on the staff is the issue that upsets everybody most. Bewley's has a hard working staff and many people have given significant service. It is a sad day for them as they have given their working lives to the cafe. Both the Westmoreland Street and Grafton Street branches are Dublin institutions but they will close later. Regrettably, despite the best endeavours of the staff, the cafés have been losing significant money for the Campbell family.

Send in Willie Walsh.

The business is not viable, as outlined by the family.

It is not viable because of property speculators against whom the Taoiseach would not move.

The buildings are listed and they cannot be desecrated in the manner mentioned by Deputy Sargent. However, it is sad, even at a time of significant consumer spending and given the availability of many leisure facilities, that the cafés have not been able to survive commercially. My thoughts are with the staff who have done their best.

I agree with Deputy Sargent regarding the old Quaker tradition of Bewley's and I respect the people who did a great deal through the generations there, which is of major significance. Unfortunately, the operation has not able to survive, which is regrettable.

I share the Taoiseach's concern for the staff. However, is he happy to see Grafton Street becoming an alleyway for global brands? Will they continue to serve both tourism and the economy generally in the same way Bewley's did down the years? Given that pension funds are being invested overseas, in some cases dubiously, does such an institution not warrant the investment the State could bring to bear, given that the Taoiseach thought it worthy to invest €50 million in Farmleigh House? It is an expensive bed and breakfast at that price. Does Bewley's not have a more legitimate claim on State investment? Such investment is not unique and it has been successful internationally. Would the Taoiseach be open to discussions with the owners and others who have campaigned to franchise the cafés or use them to promote the history and culture in Dublin? If Farmleigh House is justifiable, why not Bewley's?

I accept the Deputy is raising this issue because Bewley's is an institution and I share some of his views on Grafton Street. It is an important street in our capital and it should be maintained to the highest standards. I have commented on the staff but the concept of the Government joining in to run Bewley's is not something we could seriously do or support.

We do not want the Taoiseach to make the coffee but——

The Taoiseach, without interruption.

We must be realistic. Bewley's is a commercial entity but the premises will have a different life and they have been preserved for the future. My thoughts are with the staff members but it will not be Bewley's as we have known it.

Why Farmleigh and not Bewley's?

Top
Share